Topic started by Saman Ranawaka (@ portal.stvinc.com) on Tue Feb 4 20:01:29 .
All times in EST +10:30 for IST.

Sinhalese and tamils are two distinct groups. They got different languages. Different religions. different customs. Not much common between them. Said that, it is possible to live together only after Tamils stop terrorism.

Responses:

• Old responses
  
• From: Nalvaaku (@ 220.247.243.20) on: Thu Sep 25 02:02:25 EDT 2003
  
  This is what he ment
  சூடு சொரணை எதுவுமில்லை, KARTHI சொல்லடா!
  நீயுமா தமிழனின் பிள்ளை!
  
  நற்றமிழ் வயலில் களையாய் முளைத்தான்
  நாள் தோறும் பகைவர் உடலில் திளைத்தான்.
  
  பெற்றவள் சோற்றில் நஞ்சைக் குழைத்தான்
  பிறந்த பொன்னாட்டை அழித்துத் தொலைத்தான்.
  
  கூனியும் வளைந்தும் வாழத் துடித்தான்
  கொடியவர் போடும் எலும்பைக் கடித்தான்.
  
  மானத்தை விட்டுக் காலைப் பிடித்தான்
  மகளையும் கொடுத்து வேலை முடித்தான்
  
  ஊமை போல் மாற்றார் கையிலிருந்தான்
  புவிமிசை தமிழர் இனத்தை மறந்தான்.
  
  நம் மண்ணில் உளவு வேலை புரிந்தான்.
  நாயிலும் கீழாய்க் KARTHI பிறந்தான்.
  
  
• From: Nalvaaku (@ 220.247.243.20) on: Thu Sep 25 04:33:01 EDT 2003
  
  In Sri Lanka have also been found a single example of a dolmen (near Rambukkana) and several groups of cists. A dolmen may be explained, is a rude stone structure, a large slab placed on two or three uprights. It thus resembles a table. A cist is a smaller structure of four uprights placed on a large slab laid flat on the ground and supporting a covering slab on the top. It is thus a stone box. These constructions are called megaliths because they are formed of large stones. The slabs used in them have not been chiseled, but have been used as they had been split from the natural rock. the dolmen is above ground, but the cists appear originally to have been buried below the surface of the ground. Ash, potsherds and fragments of human bones are reported to have been found at some of the cists which have been dug into, but no systematic investigation has been undertaken at any of these megalithic sites in Sri Lanka.
  
  Megaliths are found in large numbers in South India and they have been systematically investigated. Weapons and implements of iron, and a distinctive type of pottery, have been found together with human bones in these dolmens and cists. They are thus proven to be funerary monuments. Associated with these megaliths have been found urn fields in which the remains of the dead have been buried in large pots. Several urn fields have been discovered in Sri Lanka, too, but the objects deposited in the burial jars, together with the remains of the dead, are less numerous and of poorer quality, when compared with those found in South India.
  
  The type of tools, weapons beads and pottery found in megalithic monuments and burial urns have also been discovered at stratified sites of settlements, immediately above the Neolithic stratum, and below the stratum containing relics of the historical civilisation which flourished in South India about the beginning of the Christian era. this megalithic culture therefore taken to have flourished in the period between the third century B.C. and the first century A.D. These megalithic sites and urn fields are found throughout the regions inhabited by Dravidian-speaking people. the burial customs to which they bear witness are referred to in early Tamil Literature. It is therefore legitimate to infer that the people who buried their dead in dolmens and cists as well as in large earthen-ware jars, were Dravidians.
  
  
• From: Sri (@ 203.115.31.44) on: Thu Sep 25 07:45:53 EDT 2003
  
  What about the dentition of those people?
  
  To which ethnic group living closaeby resembles those as well as those of The people of Mohondajaro and Harappa?
  
  
• From: Nalvaaku (@ 220.247.246.179) on: Thu Sep 25 10:44:24 EDT 2003
  
  re::
  //
  What about the dentition of those people?
  
  To which ethnic group living closaeby resembles those as well as those of The people of Mohondajaro and Harappa?
  //
  
  If you had carefully read it you would not be asking this question.
  
  But still it is dravidian.
  
  see
  1 Archaeological Survey of India.
  2 Robert Cadwell.
  3 Thomas Smith.
  4 Karl
  5 T.N.Iyanaar.
  6 Chothipiragasam.
  
  
• From: karthi (@ wc09.ym.rnc.net.cable.rogers.com) on: Fri Sep 26 04:03:28 EDT 2003
  
  Mohanjadaro and Harappan people closely connected and identified with LTTE and Prabhakaran. But VaiKo and others tell that they are too came from there to Tamil Nadu.
  
  M K Stalin tell that he came from there with the technoloy of Raping Tamil women.
  
  
• From: Nalvaaku (@ 220.247.247.175) on: Fri Sep 26 10:31:16 EDT 2003
  
  Karthi may I know what you are refering too.
  I think you are little bit confused, by the way you are acting.
  I can not see any connection between Mohanjadaro and Harappan people and the LTTE and Prabhakaran.
  Do not associate such a high Civiliazation with murderers.
  
  
• From: Nalvaaku (@ 220.247.247.175) on: Fri Sep 26 10:45:35 EDT 2003
  
  The first point to note is that the idea of the Aryans as foreigners who invaded India and destroyed the existing Harappan Civilization is a modern European invention; it receives no support whatsoever from Indian records - literary or archaeological.
  
  The same is true of the notion of the Aryans as a race; it finds no support in Indian literature or tradition. (And genetics demolishes it.) The word 'Arya' in Sanskrit means noble and never a race. In fact, the authoritative Sanskrit lexicon (c. 450 AD), the famous Amarakosha gives the following definition:
  
  mahakula kulinarya sabhya sajjana sadhavah .
  
  An Arya is one who hails from a noble family, of gentle behavior and demeanor, good-natured and of righteous conduct. And the great epic Ramayana has a singularly eloquent expression describing Rama as:
  
  arya sarva samascaiva sadaiva priyadarsanah - Arya, who worked for the equality of all and was dear to everyone . The Rig Veda also uses the word Arya something like thirty six times, but never to mean a race. The nearest to a definition that one can find in the Rigveda is probably:
  
  praja arya jyotiragrah ...
  
  
• From: £ (@ proxy1.leeds.ac.uk) on: Fri Sep 26 13:06:22 EDT 2003
  
  If all people in England were calling themselves Sirs and madams in 1700s, can we assume that England was a race of Sirs and Madams?
  
  Foolish to do so. it is the same case in ancient india. People used to refer to themelves as Aryas since there were of noble bearings. It is NOT a RACE.
  
  

Want to post a response?